Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] status: print per-file porcelain v2 status data
- From
- Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
- Date
- Jul 26, 2016, 13:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <57976B45.9060102@jeffhostetler.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqwpk94gbu.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On 07/25/2016 04:23 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com> writes: > >> +static void wt_porcelain_v2_print(struct wt_status *s); >> + > > There is no point in this forward declaration, if you just place the > implementation of these functions here, no?
Right. I just did it that way to make the diffs with the previous commit draw a little cleaner. But I can take it out.
Show 12 quoted lines
>> +/*
>> + * Print porcelain v2 info for tracked entries with changes.
>> + */
>> +static void wt_porcelain_v2_print_changed_entry(
>> + struct string_list_item *it,
>> + struct wt_status *s)
>> +{
>> +...
>> + fprintf(s->fp, "%c %s %s %06o %06o %06o %s %s R%d %s",
>
> It is misleading to always say R in the output when there is no
> rename, isn't it?Yes, especially if we add it for copied entries too. I was just looking for a way to have a fixed format. If we make the R%d field optional, then the first pathname is ambiguous. That gets me back to an earlier draft where we have rename and non-rename line types.
I'll split this up into 1 pathname and 2 pathname forms, and only include the R%d (or the C%d) field in the latter.
Show 7 quoted lines
> >> + * Note that this is a last-one-wins for each the individual >> + * stage [123] columns in the event of multiple cache rows >> + * for a stage. > > Just FYI, the usual lingo we use for that is "multiple cache entries > for the same stage", I would think.
thanks.
Show 25 quoted lines
>
>> + */
>> + memset(stages, 0, sizeof(stages));
>> + sum = 0;
>> + pos = cache_name_pos(it->string, strlen(it->string));
>> + assert(pos < 0);
>> + pos = -pos-1;
>> + while (pos < active_nr) {
>> + ce = active_cache[pos++];
>> + stage = ce_stage(ce);
>> + if (strcmp(ce->name, it->string) || !stage)
>> + break;
>> + stages[stage - 1].mode = ce->ce_mode;
>> + hashcpy(stages[stage - 1].oid.hash, ce->sha1);
>> + sum++;
>> + }
>> + if (!sum)
>> + die("BUG: unmerged entry without any stages");
>
> Hmm, we seem to already have d->stagemask; if you call that variable
> "sum" anyway, perhaps its computation can be more like
>
> sum |= 1 << (stage - 1);
>
> so that you can compare it with d->stagemask for this sanity check?good point.
thanks jeff